Trump’s Controversial Gaza Takeover Proposal Risks Human Rights Violations and Regional Instability

Former President Donald Trump has proposed a controversial plan suggesting that the United States should assume control over the Gaza Strip and force the displacement of approximately two million Palestinians currently residing there. During a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump blatantly declared, “The US will take over the Gaza Strip and we’ll own it,” expressing a desire for Palestinians to relocate to neighboring countries like Jordan and Egypt.

Trump’s rhetoric, which echoes dangerous notions of ethnic cleansing, paints Gaza as a “hellhole” while advocating for its redevelopment under U.S. control. His remarks not only disregard the rights and dignity of the Palestinian people but also provoke widespread condemnation from advocacy groups, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR’s National Executive Director Nihad Awad condemned Trump’s comments as a “non-starter,” emphasizing that such actions would further exacerbate the humanitarian crisis and violate fundamental human rights.

The reaction from neighboring Arab nations has been overwhelmingly negative, with leaders in Jordan and Egypt rejecting the idea of accepting Gaza’s residents. Trump’s misleading portrayal of his proposal as a pathway to peace fails to address the underlying issues of the ongoing conflict and the suffering of the Palestinian population. Instead, it perpetuates a cycle of violence and displacement that further entrenches systemic inequities in the region.

By promoting this takeover, Trump is not only attempting to impose an unethical solution on a deeply complex situation but also risking the stability of U.S. foreign relations in the Middle East. His comments suggest a lack of understanding or respect for international laws governing territorial integrity and human rights. This plan reflects a broader trend within the Republican Party’s approach to foreign policy, characterized by militarism and disregard for humanitarian norms.

The implications of Trump’s Gaza takeover plan could be devastating, potentially leading to increased violence and further destabilizing the region. As Trump and his allies continue to espouse harmful ideologies that undermine democracy and human rights, the need for accountability and truthful discourse has never been greater.

(h/t: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2025/02/04/trump-says-us-will-own-and-develop-gaza-strip.html)

Trump’s Gaza Plan Promotes Displacement and Militarism, Threatening Palestinian Rights

During a recent press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former President Donald Trump made alarming statements regarding Palestinians in Gaza, suggesting they should permanently relocate and that the U.S. would take over the Gaza Strip. He claimed, “The US will take over the Gaza Strip and we will do a job with it,” a statement that raises serious ethical and humanitarian concerns about the rights of the Palestinian people.

Trump’s proposal to displace Gazans comes amidst ongoing humanitarian crises and reflects a troubling mindset that prioritizes U.S. ownership over the dignity and rights of vulnerable populations. By asserting that it is better for Palestinians to leave “a big pile of rubble,” Trump perpetuates narratives that echo ethnic cleansing, disregarding the historical and emotional ties of Palestinians to the land.

He suggested that Palestinians could be resettled in neighboring countries, yet both Jordan and Egypt have publicly rejected the idea of accepting new refugees, highlighting the impracticality and insensitivity of his comments. Trump’s characterization of Gaza as “not a place for people to be living” not only dismisses the lived realities of Palestinians, but also blatantly ignores their claims to their homeland.

The implications of Trump’s rhetoric are far-reaching and potentially dangerous, resonating with far-right Israeli factions while also endangering U.S. diplomatic relations in the Middle East. His casual mention of U.S. troops potentially being deployed to fill perceived security gaps adds an alarming militaristic dimension to his plans, raising questions about intervening in regional conflicts that have historically involved complex nuances.

By promoting ideas that suggest a unilateral U.S. takeover of Gaza, Trump’s comments reinforce a pattern of authoritarianism and imperialistic ambition that undercuts the foundational principles of human rights and self-determination. As he continues to advocate for extreme measures concerning foreign policy, it becomes evident that Trump’s vision for the Middle East is not one of peace or diplomacy, but rather one of domination and neglect for the rights of the Palestinian people.

(h/t: https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/04/politics/netanyahu-trump-white-house-meeting/index.html)

Trump’s Military Deportation Plan Faces Legal and Military Backlash

Donald Trump’s recent declaration to deploy U.S. troops for mass deportations of undocumented migrants is not only reckless but also faces significant legal and practical challenges. The use of military personnel in domestic law enforcement is heavily restricted by the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the role of federal troops in enforcing laws, creating a potential clash between Trump’s agenda and established legal frameworks. Despite these constraints, Trump’s administration appears determined to push forward with their controversial plans, presenting a troubling prospect for civil rights and military integrity.

Trump’s transition team spokesperson emphasized their commitment to executing the largest deportation operation in American history, claiming that his re-election provides a mandate for such extreme measures. However, the military’s involvement in immigration enforcement raises serious ethical concerns, as many service members join with the intention of defending national security rather than acting as police officers. This cultural clash could lead to resistance from within the armed forces, undermining the effectiveness of Trump’s proposed actions.

The plan to use military resources for non-enforcement roles, such as building infrastructure or gathering intelligence, may still face pushback from military leaders who view such missions as outside the traditional scope of military operations. Experts note that the military has historically been reluctant to engage in domestic law enforcement, fearing it may compromise public trust in their primary mission. As a result, attempting to involve the military in such a politically charged task could create a rift between the administration and military personnel.

Additionally, Trump’s reliance on state-led National Guard troops to circumvent federal restrictions could lead to significant legal disputes, particularly if deployed in states that oppose his policies. Such actions could be interpreted as violations of state sovereignty, prompting lawsuits that challenge the constitutionality of his approach. This scenario paints a picture of a chaotic and divisive implementation of immigration policy, one that could further polarize an already fractured political landscape.

In conclusion, Trump’s ambition to militarize immigration enforcement is fraught with legal challenges and internal resistance, highlighting a dangerous trend towards authoritarianism in American governance. The potential backlash from military leaders and state governors underscores the fragility of Trump’s plans, revealing deep-seated tensions between his administration’s goals and the principles of democratic governance. As this situation unfolds, it remains crucial for lawmakers and citizens alike to uphold the values of justice and human rights against the tide of divisive policies.

(h/t: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-military-mass-deportation-plan-legal-limits-experts-2024-11)

Trump’s Call for Military Action Against Political Opponents Sparks Outrage

Donald Trump has ignited significant backlash from Democrats following his recent comments suggesting that the U.S. military should be deployed against political adversaries during the upcoming presidential election. In a Fox News interview, Trump referred to his opponents as ‘the enemy within,’ indicating that this group poses a greater threat to democracy than foreign entities or illegal immigrants.

During the interview, Trump singled out Congressmember Adam Schiff, asserting that he represents a danger to fair elections. Trump’s rhetoric has raised alarms among political analysts and historians, who draw parallels between his proposed actions and authoritarian regimes led by figures like Viktor Orbán and Vladimir Putin.

Kamala Harris’s campaign responded sharply, comparing Trump’s remarks to his previous threats to act as a dictator should he regain the presidency. Harris’s campaign pointed out that these statements reflect a serious threat to democratic norms, calling for vigilance among Americans who value their freedoms.

In addition to targeting Schiff, Trump has reiterated claims of widespread voter fraud without evidence, furthering fears that he may incite violence or unrest if he perceives electoral outcomes as unfavorable. Schiff himself has condemned Trump’s comments, likening them to the incitement of the January 6 Capitol attack and warning of the potential for political violence.

(h/t: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/14/trump-military-enemy-within-armed-forces-election-day)

Trump says he will deploy military if state officials can’t contain protest violence

As the sound of sirens wailed and flash bangs popped across the street, President Donald Trump announced from the Rose Garden that he would use the U.S. military to stop the riots across the county that have been sparked by the death of George Floyd.

“I am mobilizing all federal and local resources, civilian and military, to protect the rights of law abiding Americans,” Trump said in the extraordinary address, which was delivered as police fired tear gas outside to push protesters back from the White House.

“If a city or state refuses to take the actions necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them,” Trump said, referring to himself as “your president of law and order and an ally of all peaceful protesters.”

To activate the military to operate in the U.S., Trump would have to invoke the 213-year-old Insurrection Act, which four people familiar with the decision had told NBC News he planned to do.

The military police forces would come from Fort Bragg in North Carolina and possibly Fort Belvoir in Virginia and could arrive in Washington within hours, these people said.

Trump’s decision to invoke the act, adopted in 1807, to deploy troops comes as his frustrations mount over the protests that have followed the death of Floyd, a black man who was killed in police custody last week in Minneapolis. The people familiar with his decision said Trump was angry Sunday night at the destruction protestors caused in Washington, particularly the vandalization of national monuments.

Some of the president’s aides have been encouraging him for days to invoke the act, as he weighs options for exercising executive powers to address the crisis. The act was last invoked during the 1992 Rodney King riots in Los Angeles.

Trump’s remarks came hours after he urged the nation’s governors to get “tough” with unruly demonstrators. “Most of you are weak,” he told them, according to audio of the call obtained by NBC News. “You have to dominate. If you don’t dominate, you’re wasting your time, they’re gonna run over you, you’re gonna look like a bunch of jerks,” the president said.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the president’s plans but at a briefing with reporters Monday, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany left open the possibility that the president could invoke the act.

“The Insurrection Act, it’s one of the tools available, whether the president decides to pursue that, that’s his prerogative,“ McEnany said.

Governors can ask that the federal government send active duty troops to help in cases of civil unrest like the widespread protests plaguing U.S. cities over the last several days. But, so far, no governor has requested active duty troops to assist and instead they have relied on local law enforcement and National Guard soldiers and airmen on state active duty.

Governors often prefer the National Guard forces in these cases because they can legally perform law enforcement duties in the U.S., whereas troops on active duty cannot without violating the Posse Comitatus Act, a 1878 law that prohibits the government from using military forces to act as a police force within U.S. borders.

But the president could invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy active-duty troops without a request from a governor. Those troops would be allowed to conduct law enforcement missions. To invoke the act, Trump would first have to issue a proclamation to “immediately order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time,” according to the law.

In the past the Justice Department has drafted such proclamations. And according to the Congressional Research Service, the act has been invoked many times throughout U.S. history, although rarely since the 1960s civil rights era. When it was invoked in 1992 during the Los Angeles riots, the move was requested by then-California Gov. Pete Wilson, not invoked solely by President George H.W. Bush.

The Defense Department declined to comment on the possibility that the president could invoke the act.

One of Trump’s allies outside the White House, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., urged Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act “if necessary” so U.S. troops can “support our local law enforcement and ensure that this violence ends tonight.”

[NBC News]

Trump Blames Obama for Iran Attack Then Takes Credit for Obama’s Accomplishments in Off-the-Rails Address to the Nation

After three years there were likely few Americans hoping for some form of comfort from President Donald Trump’s address to the nation Wednesday in the wake of Tuesday night’s attack by Iran on air bases in Iraq that host thousands of U.S. Military troops. And President Trump, true to form, did not offer any.

The President descended as if from heaven (photo above) onto a stage filled with his military generals and advisors,

Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper. A clear attempt to show strength which the administration apparently felt the Commander-in-Chief could not summon if he appeared on camera alone. A sad statement.

“As long as I’m president of the United States Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon,” Trump, out of breath, declared as he walked up to the podium, flanked by his men in uniform. He then said: “Good morning.”

President Trump was expected to give Americans hope and comfort, and a clear indication that they are safe from attack.

Instead, he tried to show strength through military might – with no suggestion diplomacy might be a better route.

And he lied.

A lot.

“The missiles fired last night at us and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration,” Trump claimed, blaming President Barack Obama in a speech watched around the world.

“Iran’s hostilities substantially increased after the foolish Iran nuclear deal was signed in 2013,” Trump claimed. (It was actually 2015.)

He added, “they were given $150 billion, not to mention $1.8 billion in cash.  Instead of saying ‘thank you’ to the United States, they chanted ‘death to America.’  In fact, they chanted ‘death to America’ the day the agreement was signed.”

Those billions belonged to Iran, and reportedly were less than the numbers Trump quoted. They were Iranian funds frozen which had been paid to the U.S. for arms never delivered. It is a frequent trump lie he tells at rallies over and over.

“Then, Iran went on a terror spree, funded by the money from the deal, and created hell in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iraq,” Trump claimed  in his address to the nation – and to the world. “The missiles fired last night at us and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration.  The regime also greatly tightened the reins on their own country, even recently killing 1,500 people at the many protests that are taking place all throughout Iran.”

“The very defective JCPOA [the “Iran deal”] expires shortly anyway,” Trump said. That’s just false – another lie Trump often tells. Various parts expire between 2025 and 2030.

He claimed the JCPOA “gives Iran a clear and quick path to nuclear breakout,” which again is false.

After falsely blaming Obama for Iran’s attack he went on to take credit for Obama paving to road to energy independence.

“Over the last three years, under my leadership, our economy is stronger than ever before and America has achieved energy independence.  These historic accomplishments changed our strategic priorities.  These are accomplishments that nobody thought were possible.”

Again, false.

Here’s CNN’s Keith Boykin with graphs showing just how false Trump’s energy independence remarks were:

https://twitter.com/keithboykin/status/1214950568013242370?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[The New Civil Rights Movement]

Trump’s evidence that Suleimani posed an imminent threat was ‘razor thin’: US officials

On Saturday, New York Times reporter Rukmini Callimachi laid out on Twitter the basic points of evidence cited by the Trump administration that Iranian military leader Qassim Suleimani posed an imminent threat to Americans in the region — and how they do not really hold water:

https://twitter.com/rcallimachi/status/1213421769777909761


https://twitter.com/rcallimachi/status/1213423621349224448

https://twitter.com/rcallimachi/status/1213424489679196161

https://twitter.com/rcallimachi/status/1213427304413777923

https://twitter.com/rcallimachi/status/1213430242079125505

[Raw Story]


Trump Told Mar-a-Lago Pals to Expect ‘Big’ Iran Action ‘Soon’

In the five days prior to launching a strike that killed Iran’s most important military leader, Donald Trump roamed the halls of Mar-a-Lago, his private resort in Florida, and started dropping hints to close associates and club-goers that something huge was coming.

According to three people who’ve been at the president’s Palm Beach club over the past several days, Trump began telling friends and allies hanging at his perennial vacation getaway that he was working on a “big” response to the Iranian regime that they would be hearing or reading about very “soon.” His comments went beyond the New Year’s Eve tweet he sent out warning of the “big price” Iran would pay for damage to U.S. facilities. Two of these sources tell The Daily Beast that the president specifically mentioned he’d been in close contact with his top national security and military advisers on gaming out options for an aggressive action that could quickly materialize.

“He kept saying, ‘You’ll see,’” one of the sources recalled, describing a conversation with Trump days before Thursday’s strike.

Trump’s gossipy whispers regarding a “big” response in Iraq foreshadowed what was to come. After hours of silence, senior officials in the Trump administration argued that what had taken place in Iraq was not an act of aggression. Instead, they said both publicly and behind closed doors on the Hill that killing Qassem Soleimani was designed to “advance the cause of peace,” as U.S. Special Envoy for Iran Brian Hook put it in a Friday interview

Those Mar-a-Lago guests received more warning about Thursday’s attack than Senate staff did, and about as much clarity. A classified briefing on Friday, the first the administration gave to the Hill, featured broad claims about what the Iranians were planning and little evidence of planning to bring about the “de-escalation” the administration says it wants.  

According to three sources either in the room or told about the discussion, briefers from the State Department, Pentagon, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence claimed that killing Soleimani was designed to block Iranian plans to kill “hundreds” or even thousands of Americans in the Mideast. That would be a massive escalation from the recent attack patterns of Iran and its regional proxies, who tend to kill Americans in small numbers at a time. 

“This administration has absolutely not earned the benefit of the doubt when it makes these kinds of claims. When you’re taking action that could lead to the third American war in the Middle East in 20 years, you need to do better than these kinds of assertions,” said a Senate aide in the room. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has also said publicly that the Iranians planned to kill hundreds of Americans before Soleimani’s killing.

Nor, said four sources who requested anonymity to discuss a classified briefing, did the briefers provide detail on a key question surrounding an act of war against a regional power: what next? 

[The Daily Beast]

Trump Authorized US Strike That Killed Iranian Military Leader Qassim Soleimani

The Pentagon confirms the U.S. was responsible for an attack that killed the head of Iran’s elite Quds Force at Baghdads International Airport Friday.

“At the direction of the President, the U.S. military has taken decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization,” a statement from Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said.

“General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region. General Soleimani and his Quds Force were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more. He had orchestrated attacks on coalition bases in Iraq over the last several months – including the attack on December 27th – culminating in the death and wounding of additional American and Iraqi personnel. General Soleimani also approved the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that took place this week.

“This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans. The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world.”

The Associated Press said Iraqi officials whose names were not released had confirmed Soleimani’s death and said he was identified by a ring he wore. Other sources said the strikes hit two cars, which were set on fire, making it difficult to confirm the identities of those who died.

Soleimani is one of Iran’s most powerful and shadowy figures. As leader of the Quds Force, he is said to be responsible for the country’s development and coordination with militias and proxy forces throughout the Middle East. U.S. officials accuse him of coordinating Iraqi militia attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq.

U.S. officials have accused Soleimani of sponsoring terrorism and singled him out as a major figure for decades. The Trump administration placed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — which includes the Quds Force — on the State Department’s list of terrorist groups. It was the first time a government’s official military was placed on the list.

President Trump had vowed that Iran would “pay a very big price” for the unrest at the U.S. embassy compound in Baghdad. After the strikes, he tweeted the image of an American flag with no comment.

The chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), released a statement saying he is worried about the security aftereffects of the strike, which Engel said had gone ahead without notice or consultation with Congress.

“To push ahead with an action of this gravity without involving Congress raises serious legal problems and is an affront to Congress’s powers as a coequal branch of government,” Engel said.

Soleimani was a prominent figure

Norman Roule, now retired, tracked Iran through his career with the CIA and the Director of National Intelligence. He told NPR’s All Things Considered the death of Soleimani was significant.

“You can expect seismic waves to go through the Shia communities of Lebanon, Iraq and Iran,” Roule said. “You can expect that the Iranians and the Iraqi militia groups will certainly seek some sort of retribution.”

He also pointed to the death in the same attack of Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis whom he called Soleimani’s “senior-most lieutenant in the Iraqi military architecture.”

Roule said he believed the U.S. would not have carried out the strikes unless “a significant terrorist attack was underway or about to be undertaken by these individuals and if neutralizing these individuals would prevent that.”

Qassim Soleimani, the Iranian military leader killed by U.S. airstrikes at the Baghdad airport Friday, wielded power in his country that went beyond the elite Quds Forces he commanded. He had been given authority over Iranian operations in the region.

The AP reports that “Soleimani rose to prominence by advising forces fighting the Islamic State group in Iraq and in Syria on behalf of the embattled [Syrian President Bashar] Assad.”

Soleimani’s Quds Forces are “sort of a mixture of our special operations and Central Intelligence Agency,” according to Norman Roule, a former Iran expert for the CIA and Director of National Intelligence. “He [had] been given charge of Iran’s foreign policy in the region and in essence he used that authority to create a series of militias based on the Lebanese Hezbollah.”

“As a military commander he would not actually rank in capacity or stature with a first-world military commander, such as a U.S. general. However, his political reach was vast … in that Iran basically ceded its regional activities to his purview,” Roule said.

In 2018, Soleimani spoke with political authority when he responded to a tweet by President Trump, that Iran would “suffer consequences the likes of which few throughout history have ever suffered before” if it repeated threats against the U.S.

Soleimani was quoted by the semi-official Tasnim news agency: “As a soldier, it is my duty to respond to your threats,” he said. “It is not in our president’s dignity to respond to you.”

“Come. We are ready,” Soleimani said, accusing Trump of using “the language of night clubs and gambling halls.”

“If you begin the war, we will end the war,” he said.

[NPR]

The US Navy canceled a routine Black Sea patrol after Trump complained that it was hostile to Russia

Christopher Anderson, an aide to former Special Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, testified that the White House canceled a Navy freedom-of-navigation operation in the Black Sea after President Donald Trump complained to then-national security adviser John Bolton about a CNN report that framed the operation as a counter to Russia, Politico reported.

According to Anderson’s testimony, the news report in question came from CNN and characterized the operation as antagonistic toward Russia. Anderson testified that Trump called Bolton at home to complain about the article, and the operation was later canceled at the behest of the White House, Anderson said.

“In January, there was an effort to get a routine freedom-of-navigation operation into the Black Sea,” Anderson testified. “There was a freedom-of-navigation operation for the Navy. So we — we, the US government — notified the Turkish government that there was this intent.”

While Anderson in his testimony placed the report in January, details from his testimony match a story from early December, which had the headline “US makes preparations to sail warship into the Black Sea amid Russia-Ukraine tensions.”

Anderson said the White House asked the Navy to cancel the freedom-of-navigation operation because the report portrayed the operation as a move to counter Russia, which has increased its naval presence there since annexing Crimea in 2014. In November 2018, its forces attacked Ukrainian assets transiting the Kerch Strait, which connects the Black Sea with the Azov Sea. Russia seized three Ukrainian ships and held 24 Ukrainian service members captive.

“We met with Ambassador Bolton and discussed this, and he made it clear that the president had called him to complain about that news report. And that may have just been that he was surprised,” Anderson said.

“We don’t — I can’t speculate as to why, but that, that operation, was canceled, but then we were able to get a second one for later in February. And we had an Arleigh-class destroyer arrive in Odessa on the fifth anniversary of the Crimea invasion.”

The White House and the US Navy’s 6th Fleet, which conducts operations in Europe, did not immediately respond to Insider’s requests for comment. 

[Business Insider]

1 2 3 4